I am a physician, financial planner, educator, and I love to tell great stories. The world is too complicated and doesn’t have to be that way. The goal for this blog is to bring simplicity to the two subjects I know best – financial planning and medicine.
My background - Med School at University of Mississippi and residency at the Medical College of Virginia. I taught at the University of Florida and worked in various emergency departments in the Jacksonville area.
In trying to find a financial planner, I went back to school for fun and found another passion. I founded Life Planning Partners, Inc. in 2004 and felt like I haven’t had a job since. I began sharing stories on the interplay of my two professions and am grateful for audiences all over the country who want to hear my message about medicine, money, and keeping it simple. Please join the conversation.

Suggestions On "Take Two" For The NRA

Discussion about gun regulation pops up every time we have a major gun related event. These tragedies occur so frequently that the NRA has developed a “standard operating procedure” to handle the public relations. They stay quiet a few days, make a pre-announcement saying they will propose solutions, have a press conference promoting more gun ownership, and continue with their legislation to expand unfettered access to guns. Their procedure failed miserably this time as they do not understand the pain in the hearts of our country over the latest mass shooting.

As a physician, I have a distinct interest in gun violence and the cost to our country. The NRA has an adversarial relationship with much of the medical community and maybe they can look to us to salvage their current situation. Today I give suggestions of “Take Two” for the NRA to help them improve their standing after their latest fiasco.

On December 18th, the NRA announced a major news conference to be held on December 21st. In the release, they stated, “The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.” Gun violence results from complex forces – media overload and desensitization of murder and death, poor education on non-violent conflict resolution, and easy access to powerful guns are a few examples. As an optimist, I hoped for useful proposals from the NRA on how we could reduce gun violence in this country. There are many solutions that could stem the tide, and addressing the problem from many angles is needed to provide good results.

On Friday, the NRA held their “press event” and my optimism was crushed. I keep hoping the NRA will come around to some sensibility, but was disappointed again. We’ve all heard the proposals by now:

Create an active database of the mentally ill. (I was amazed at this one – we can keep a database of the mentally ill, but we can’t keep a database of who owns guns and what type they own? Can we do both and cross-reference? That would be very interesting.)

Get rid of violent video games and music videos that glamorize violence. (I’m all for that.)

Put armed guards in every school. The NRA is willing to train those armed guards, and they feel enough citizens will volunteer for duty so the cost will not be high. (Really? Do we really want “volunteers” with guns protecting students? We know this doesn’t work anyway. Mass shootings occur in areas where guards stand ready.)

In the past, I pointed out the NRA’s involvement in Obamacare and I learned the tactics of the NRA first hand. They operate from a place of fear and want to instill that fear in others so their agenda is advanced. Of the hundreds of comments and emails I received from advocates of gun rights, there are many themes:

The 2nd amendment isn’t so much about owning guns as it is for citizens to have the means to overthrow the government in the event of tyranny. The argument against any gun control is a citizen should have firepower that can match the government’s firepower.

Gun advocates like to point out the ignorance of people who are not “into” guns, and therefore they should not be allowed to talk about guns or gun control. To a gun advocate, someone who uses “automatic” when they mean “semi-automatic” should not discuss guns. For the gun advocates, I have this to say – those not “into” guns have a problem with guns that can shoot many bullets in a very short period of time. Who cares what the version is – automatic, semi-automatic, large caliber, what-ever? To share an example of what “regular folks” have a problem with – I found this lovely video on how to shoot your semi-automatic like an automatic by simply looping your thumb in your belt loop.

Gun advocates like to let you know they have a large arsenal and are prepared to overthrow tyranny. I worry about their definition of tyranny.

Gun advocates focus on the other ways people die and how those numbers are larger than the number of people killed with guns. Auto accidents, heart disease, and cancer kill far more people. Yes, they do. And we actively research all of these scourges of society, and death and morbidity have subsequently been reduced in all three. Good news for gun rights – injury and death declined over the past two decades, despite the increase and availability of violent video games and the increase in number of firearms owned by our citizens. It would be great if we had strong research that helps us understand why this is happening, but the NRA doesn’t want anyone doing that research.

As I dug deeply for statistics, I noticed a trend – very little recent information on gun statistics is available from reputable sources such as the Centers for Disease Control. And then I found out why – the NRA actively lobbies to stifle research and education about guns.

We experienced this in Florida as the NRA sponsored a bill to take away a physician’s right to ask about gun ownership. It is standard of care to ask a suicidal or homicidal person if they have access to guns, and pediatricians provide routine gun safety education. The law in Florida put this on ice, and thankfully a federal judge found it unconstitutional. Of course, Rick Scott, the Governor of Florida and NRA member, is appealing that ruling. We’ll see what happens. The NRA wants us to track mental illness, but we can’t ask the mentally ill if they have a gun?

We should all work together to create solutions. Continue objective research and education, improve mental health care, and the least talked about solution – provide everyone with education on non-violent conflict resolution. Does the NRA realize that non-violent conflict resolution is much harder when someone with whom you are having a conversation has a gun at his side?

Gun rights are very political, and the NRA strong arm tactics are putting them in danger of alienating many of their supporters. If they are serious about “meaningful contributions,” I suggest a “Take Two ” press conference where they can be a little conciliatory and throw the public a few bones.

Provide funding and promote gun violence research by independent organizations.

Work with medical and physician organizations on gun safety education.

Promote active questioning of those with suicidal or homicidal tendencies about gun access.

Develop programs on non-violent conflict resolution and teach these in every school.

None of these would have stopped the mass tragedies we had this past year, but they might stem the average 85 gun deaths we have each day in this country. The only thing that may have stopped the mass tragedies would be to get rid of all the guns. They did in Japan, and right now that is not a reality in the United States. Maybe one day we can at least talk about better regulation of guns that quickly shoot a lot of bullets. I would take my proposals as a good faith start from the NRA and hope for the rest another day.

Questions, comments, suggestions? Post here, Twitter @CarolynMcC, or carolyn.mcclanahan@gmail.com. And for my friends from the gun advocates groups, I would appreciate constructive conversation.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I think you forgot about Fort Hood. By the way, arguing with case studies is useless and not good science. But since you are discussing case studies, how about Christian radicals who like their guns too – David Koresh.

Tell me how you would reduce the gun homicide rate that is 20 times higher than any other wealthy nation.

Without taking a position on that (it’s a pretty vague statement anyway):

Can you actually not see your own presumption to a position on Mt. Olympus?

Can you actually not see that this comment – presented as some kind of definitive summary – is irrelevant? It is not like there is an option to go back and rerun the last few decades without guns, or that guns can be eliminated.

And for all the wind on these pages, gun deaths have actually dropped drastically over the last few decades. And arming schools makes no sense on factual (numerical) grounds – there are how many schools in the US? Tens, if not hundreds of thousands? A few notorious attacks – so mount thousands upon thousands of defenses? Let’s get real – with fact rather than emotion.

I would ask that you read Ron Paul’s recent comment. He slammed the NRA on armed guards but not in favor of more federal laws. I am a conservative, and yes, one of those evil guns guys. While I agree we need to do something. I don’t believe more guns laws will help. Columbine was during the last assault weapon ban. I also read, but not sure it’s true that they had a armed guard on campus during the shootings there. The simple fact is that you can’t stop evil people from doing evil things. Liberals always say they want to protect us from ourselves. Which usually means taking someones elses rights away. I will also shout from the roof tops against more anti gun legislation unless someone comes out with something that actually makes sense. That has not happened yet. We need to look at the root cause of these kind of things. In my opinion, family values are falling apart. This kind of thing did not happen when I was a kid. That was a time when we had mostly two parent families. Mom stayed at home more instead of having to work. We all sat down at dinner each night and communicated. We were not allowed to run wild late into the night. We actually had parents that disciplined us. They were not trying to be our friends, they were teaching us right from wrong. That is all but going away. The only thing that more guns laws will do will be to take away rights of law biding citizens away. Do you really think that the evil people care at all what laws you pass? Really? No, no more guns laws. We need to all look into the mirror. We may all have some blame here. You can’t legislate behavior. That needs to start at the home, not the government!

I feel like you didn’t read my article. I called for the NRA giving an inch on a couple of other items – gun education, gun research, and supporting programs for education on non-conflict resolution. I personally wish we could have a society without guns, and I know that is not possible. Most people in this country are reasonable and would agree to compromise on that measure. However, the failure of the NRA to admit that guns are even a problem in this country portrays them as unreasonable. With a gun related homicide rate of 20 times other wealthy countries, we have a problem. Instead of digging in on a position, can we look for solutions?

Owning a gun does not make you violent, although studies have proven that playing aggressive video games or watching violent movies; do in fact make individuals more violent. So why don’t you advocate ideas for the base of the issue, such as, how do individuals mentally come to the decision that killing people is a good decision. Why don’t video game and movie manufactures have to provide certified studies, results and actions that place restrictions on products that promote violence and alter or enhance aggressive moods. Your argument begins in the middle of the problem.

I think that is a great idea, but funding for mental health issues has been cut again and again.

Actually, other countries play the same video games and don’t have near the violence we do. Studies do show this. Maybe it is a mix of access to guns that puts us over the edge? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

“…place restrictions on products that promote violence and alter or enhance aggressive moods”

“I think that is a great idea”

And YOU were screeching about the NRA tromping on First Amendment rights?

Gaw, this is such typical liberalism – practically a perfect example of leftist pretzel logic. Diversity and freedom of speech are among their highest values – until they discover people who are actually different from themselves and who say things they don’t agree with.

Would you have guessed that Democratic professors who don’t own guns don’t want guns on campus. Somebody paid for a study to show that Democratic faculty who do not own guns are 4-5 times more likely to think carry guns on campus was a bad idea. Who’d of thunk it!

“The vast majority felt safe on their campuses (98 %) and were not supportive of people carrying concealed handguns on their campuses (94 %).” Sheeple that don’t want guns on “their” campuses. And here I thought the campuses were either state or privately owned, with students/parents paying faculty salaries – my mistake!!

And you wonder why NRA pushed for a ban on federal funds for firearms research! Check that opening sentence: “The presence of firearms in an environment significantly increases firearm trauma.” Well dang! There goes the theory that where there are no guns, more people get shot!

Digging deep, it appears the author is funded by Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation, notorious for sponsoring junk anti-gun research. They have pulled grants from those who couldn’t conclude guns were bad, so most complete their studies before applying for funding, then get “rewarded” for publishing afterwards. Talk about academic dishonesty!!

The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA, amy.thompson4@utoledo.edu. Abstract

The presence of firearms in an environment significantly increases firearm trauma. So far, four states have passed legislation permitting the carrying of concealed handguns on university campuses and several other states are considering such legislation. The purpose of this study to assess the perceptions and practices of college faculty regarding support for carrying concealed handguns on their campuses. A valid and reliable questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1,125 faculty at 15 randomly selected state universities in five Great Lakes states. A two wave postal mailing in the Spring of 2012 was conducted to help ensure an adequate response rate. A total of 791 (70 %) of the faculty responded. The vast majority felt safe on their campuses (98 %) and were not supportive of people carrying concealed handguns on their campuses (94 %). Seven of the eight potential disadvantages of carrying concealed handguns on campus were supported by the majority of faculty members. Those who were significantly more likely to perceive there to be disadvantages to carrying concealed handguns on campus were: those who did not own a firearm (OR = 4.89), Democrats (OR = 4.52) or Independents (OR = 2.25), Asians (OR = 2.49), and females (OR = 1.51). The vast majority of faculty felt safe on their campuses and perceived that carrying concealed handguns on campuses create more risks than benefits to the campus environment. Aggressive efforts are needed to help maintain the uniquely safe environment of college campuses.